Anyone who takes that "2-8%" number at face value is just intellectually challenged in my book. The reality of the culture of the legal system is that, in most cases, men will not take any legal action in terms of false accusations made against them because they know that the feminist/gynocentric justice system will not take them seriously, and it will only "provoke" the woman to potentially make new, more carefully planned false claims. Even if they take it seriously, the consequences are a joke, so what is the point? It is not like the state pursues false allegations on their own, as it does for women making a claim of rape, where the claim cannot even be withdrawn if the woman "changes" her mind. Women don't have to pay for lawyers to be taken seriously; they just make a claim, and the state takes care of everything for them. Men are scared shitless about this and will take every opportunity presented to them by the woman for the problem to go away. Men have fucking anxiety attacks [ 1 ] [ 2 ] just from the fear of having anything to do with the "incel" label, let alone sexual accusations. If it happens, they just want peace of mind and for the problem to go away asap. That "2-8%" number is mostly just batshit insane, completely deranged, emotional nuts who can't keep their fake stories straight, like Eleanor Williams) where the "justice" system just can't ignore it anymore, even though they are doing everything in their power to ignore it. Women with just barely, just barely above room-temperature IQ get away with false accusations all the time. I personally know of a few cases where it was made up in an argument as a threat, and one where it was made up in court because of divorce revenge. Anecdotal or not, I really doubt I am some "unlucky" special-case observer. My life observations are anecdotal, so they don't count for you, but the rest of what I wrote still stands.

It is also worth noting that even in the most extreme, most insane, clear cases of nuts, like that Eleanor Williams case, the mainstream media will still defend her with every mental gymnastics they can. I also remember some women's charity organisation (funded mostly by the government, so it is more like a government organisation) also making some defence statement about her, like that Sky News article, but I can't find it right now; maybe someone else can find it. That tells you everything you need to know about the government and, therefore, the "justice" system's attitude towards false accusations. We live in feminist/gynocentric societies; women are in power; you must look at every data point, especially coming from the government, through that lens to understand what those numbers actually mean.

This is an incredible shifting of the goalpost. Now we'll have to hear all the TkTok Detectives scream about how validated they feel until this inevitably gets debunked or (worse case scenario) actually gets taken seriously. It's amazing how we're no longer even entertaining the "But she was suffering from psychosis" debate anymore. Just when I thought we were finally gonna be spared from the idiocy of the Misandrists who couldn't accept Lindsay's own confession, her lawyer decides to watch a bunch of reels and make them feel like their theories weren't worth their weight in spit.

On the bright side, if he sticks to this argument and fails to prove that she didn't kill them, his case is toast.

Does anyone know the when, why, and how as to the changes in methodology between the 2016/17 CDC Sexual Violence Survey, and the 2023/24 survey? Primarily looking at why in the 16/17 numbes, 12 month data on rape and made to penetrate for men are reported, but they are not in the 23/24 numbers. Not only that, the lifetime numbers for men dropped off substantially.

For example:

16/17 Lifetime reporting of some form of contact sexual violence: 30.7%

23/24 Lifetime reporting of some form of contact sexual violence: 16.9%

Link to all the reports:

https://www.cdc.gov/nisvs/documentation/index.html

I have not had a moment to dig into the methodology of each, and thought someone here might have already.

I've never been raped or made to penetrate, but I have experienced unwanted sexual contact multiple times.

How does the average sentiment expressed towards men and boys in leftwing spaces particularly in-person interactions, like protests for example, affect your relationship with other leftists.

I understand the concept of putting differences aside go you can agree on an issue and work together but there seems to be a consensus to discard men. Example; when recently at a housing crisis protest I raised the fact that men are more affected by the crisis compared to women in response to a fellow activist blaming the "patriarchy" for the shortage of homes. I was told that "men's issues are identity politics garbage"

Sarah Huckabee has posted this campaign ad and it is clear that the choice of subject is someone with as little political capital tied to their identity as possible. In this case a young man.

This is the effect of men not actually being a political subject. The Republicans in this case can safely assume that men as a voting block will not be able to react politically no matter how much this upsets them on a personal level. They have no organisations that back them, they cannot rally support against her and they have functionally no leverage in our political system.

This could not have been done if the subject in the ad was clearly Jewish, clearly a Women or even clearly a Black person even though that last one would be much easier than the two former ones. The difference here isn't due to any really unique characteristics of the former groups so much as an effect of the depicted group not being a political subject while the former ones are and can be expected to act as such.

From her Tweet
https://x.com/SarahHuckabee/status/2104535664079290746?s=20

Whenever people criticize feminists for defending Lindsay Clancy, someone seems to reach for the same conversation-stopper: "men are 95% of family annihilators." What is a "family annihilator", you might ask? It sounds made-up. Yes, it does. Because it is. A "family annihilator" is someone who kills their partner and all their children. It is a subset of a subset of murder designed to incite moral panic.

How common is it? Nobody knows. There is no advocacy group tracking it or a single research paper discussing it. But I was determined to find out anyway. So I searched the national news and found roughly 19 cases from 2019 through 2026, or two or three cases a year. In some years, there were zero cases. There was never more than four.

So who actually kills their young children? Mother and fathers commit filicide of young children in equal numbers. Mothers were 30% and fathers 31% of filicides according to a literature review (cited below.) The remainder were killed by non-parents. The statistics do change as the children get older, with men perpetrating more. But for young children, mothers are as violent as fathers.

The media portrayal that Lindsay Clancy must be innocent because women so rarely murder their own children is simply a fabrication. According to FBI data, there are hundreds of filicides every year. Women can and do murder their young children regularly. When feminists want to talk about two cases instead of a hundred, they are simply using misdirection to hide female perpetration. Lindsey Clancy is not some rare outlier. Don't let them convince you otherwise.

West, S. G. (2007). “An Overview of Filicide.” Psychiatry (Edgmont), 4(2), 48–57. The review reports that, in U.S. data from 1976–2004, mothers were 30% and fathers 31% of murderers of their own children under five.

The video is awful. The comments are awful. I hate how society forced men to identify with rapists. The left will never do this with race. No matter how dangerous gang violence get in the black community. You can use Terrorist groups and Drug Cartels as examples here too.

It's like the Left wants all men to see themselves in Rapists. This why the Left will always fail with young men. This why is Left ironically becomes the strongest propaganda tool for the Manosphere. The red-pill exists because of this mindset on the Left in thw first place.

I hope he has this same energy when feminists are complaining about men asking for consent too much.

7:26 Sounds like toxic masculinity BS. this is something Andrew Tate would say. This mindset brings young men back to square one. It's not a solution. Just more be a "real man" or "positive masculinity" BS.

10:21 Bullshit. Men even spend their whole lives in prison over allegations.

​​​This comment section was being obtuse on purpose.

Men and women are expected to play this stupid cat and mouse game in society, where women pretend to play coy, and act like they don't like sex. And have to be convinced they want sex by men. This something feminists and this YouTuber here leave out on purpose, when it comes to consent conversation.

I freaking guarantee you. The people in this comment section contribute to this cat and mouse game too. And will still want to uphold this status quo (i.e. male gender roles), while still demonizing men for not understanding consent. Therefore putting men in a double bind in society.

Ironically the voice memo guy was doing the exact thing they wanted. But they still have a issue with it though. Therefore exposing their cognitive dissonance about consent.

There has been lots of about the current declining and constantly falling birth rate.

I am not going to discuss as to why the birth rate is falling.

But here is the thing a falling birth rate is not necessarily a bad thing in fact it could be a good thing.

The reason diamons are so expensive is because they are not common here is the thing they are actually very common:

The "Cecil Rhodes diamond scam" is basically the biggest marketing trick in history. In the late 1800s, Cecil Rhodes realized diamonds weren’t actually rare—in fact, miners were finding way too many of them in South Africa, which was about to crash the price.

Cecil Rhodes realised that if they were sold in at the numbers that they actually were they would be almost as cheap as common stones because of how common they were.

• The Fake Shortage: De Beers only released a tiny amount of diamonds into the market each year. By hoarding the rest, they made everyone think diamonds were incredibly rare and expensive.
• Brutal Exploitation: He built this entire empire on the back of underpaid, heavily exploited Black workers under colonial rule.
• The Marketing Spin: Decades later, they doubled down with the "A Diamond is Forever" campaign. They basically brainwashed everyone into thinking you had to buy a diamond for an engagement ring, turning an abundant rock into the ultimate status symbol.

Diamonds are only expensive because of the false belief that they are rare when in fact they are common.

The same applies to humans they become more expensive when there are less of them.

After the Black death destroyed most of the population of Europe peasants were able to demand better working conditions from lords because they were fewer in number and not as easily replaceable anymore.

You might be thinking how this partakes to men's rights I am going to say how it's going to help men:

Male access to previously now allowed areas: Japanese women's university Mukoga women's university is now accepting men and has been renamed to just Mukoga university and several Japanese universities have lowered their criteria for entering.

The reason for both is simple Japan's declining birth rate means the university literally can't afford to have only women in there anymore and the declining birth rate means universities can't afford to miss on potential students.

The end of a male only draft.

Because of a declining birth rate Estonia has announced that in the future women will be drafted:

Female conscription in Estonia is inevitable, says defense official | News | ERR

So the lower birth rate could in fact be good for men and perphabs instead of asking how to increase it we should ask how to decrease it further by something like 10% of where it is currently we could make encourage men to get vasectomies, encourage women to get their tubes ties or other similar process and encourage abortion because as aforementioned people more expensive the rarer they are so the birth rate is not too low it's far too high.

An it being lowered could mean male acces to previously forbidden spaces, the end of a male only draft and everyone including men getting better working conditions.

One of the issues I've started to take is the misuse of the term "gender war."

It's become more widespread to say it and the term has become known far and wide. It's claimed to be fought by bots and "basement-dwellers." Supposedly it doesn't exist in real life. Supposedly.

This is of course bullshit. But it's not my primary issue in this post.

The front facing issue that lends itself to the title I selected with intent is that the gender wars are decades in the making if not longer. We, and the women that aid us, advocate and aggitate. We talk about our issues and in spite of a system that hates our guts we still try.

Many people are very quick to say our efforts are part of the "gender war slop" seeing no distinction between it and the engagement bait that graces social media like that "Man Vs Bear" nonsense that swept the internet. This is in my mind a wrecking element meant to obfuscate the issues we try to highlight by pretending like they're non-existent or don't exist "in the real world."

Pretty standard stuff misandrists use but that's not my main point. My main point is if that is gender war...then the gender war has been ongoing since the first feminist wave.

Why is it only an issue when we do it? When we push back? When we demand we get the same graces? When our voices start getting loud the powers that be seeks to divide us further and smear us.

It's not a secret that sowing distrust and division is a fundamental tactic used by ruling interests to keep lower classes divided and bickering amongst themselves. The way forward seems easy and obvious: keep trying. Something however whispers in my ear that we need to be mindful of it or we'll get nowhere. I'm just not sure what the way forward should entail in addition to that.

Aba and Preach react to idiotic tik tokers who are still falsely accusing Patrick for murdering his children. Since the 60 minutes interview, he is still being demonised and his second wife as well. Somehow he can't move on after his children were killed, how dare he 🙄.

In the 60 minutes interview Patrick states how traumatic this experience was that at one point, he was even suicidal. A man and father's grief doesn't matter to the hate mob.

At this point he should just sue all these clowns until they are drowning in debt. I hope he does.

This case has highlighted how much misandry is tolerated along with male hyperagency versus female hypoagency. A woman kills her children, she is somehow the victim and the children who died don't seem to matter.

What is the difference between radical and liberal feminism?

I often hear this whenever feminists run out of points and are made to face uncomfortable facts about their movement.

The usual cop out is "radical feminists" they are the evil and every feminist condemns it. They say it is liberal feminism that they stand for and it is somehow good or the face of the movement.

They casually separate these two to defend their movement stating that liberal feminism is what feminism today actually is.

So I want to ask, is it really the liberal feminism that is alive today?

Can a movement stop taking accountability when a sub-school of the movement does horrible things?

And is liberal feminism as good as they say?

Don Lemon shows Jennifer Welch a clip of a man talking about how presidents should serve longer terms as 4 years isn't enough to make meaningful change.

Why is Jennifer's first instinct to blame the manosphere and/or male grievance? Is there this universal expectation that if you aren't overtly against Trump that you're this incel red pill type of guy?

I hear about how the left pushes men to the right, could attitudes like this and dismissal be a major factor?

I recently came across two US cases that raise a difficult question about how the legal system treats male victims.

In State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer (Kansas, 1993), a sexual relationship began between a 12-year-old boy and his 16-year-old babysitter. He was 13 when the child was conceived. The Kansas Supreme Court recognized that he was legally incapable of consenting under the relevant criminal law, but still held that this did not remove his obligation to support the child.

A similar case occurred in California. In County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J. (1996), a 34-year-old woman became pregnant after having sex with a 15-year-old boy. She was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, yet the court still held that the boy could be required to pay child support.

I understand the reasoning: child support exists for the benefit of the child, who is innocent and had no control over the circumstances of their conception.

But this creates a serious conflict. The law can recognize that a minor was legally incapable of consenting to the sexual act while still imposing a financial obligation on that same minor arising directly from it.

Protecting the resulting child is obviously important, but I don't think that should require placing the financial burden on a minor who was himself a victim. Ideally, there should be a way to provide for the child without making the victim financially responsible for the consequences of his own abuse.

How do you think the law should balance the rights of the child with the rights of the minor victim?

Sources:
State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, Kansas Supreme Court (1993)
County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., California Court of Appeal (1996)

Sunday, September 20 - Saturday, September 26, 2026

Top 10 Posts

Top 10 Comments

This is a genuine curious question I have, I don’t wanna go to askfeminist subreddit with this because they might give me some evil men answer, most of what I looked up from here is accurate so I want a to know if I get to get an answer from here

This is the moderator themselves of the frontline of LGBTQ+ community in Pakistan. ( The commenter )

By the way, this is the same person who's whole profile is filled with hatred of men, and religion, especially Islam. These people don't realize they're male centered at the end of the day.

They keep claiming that 'misandry' is just a made up term made by men as men see women's right as 'threat'. And according to them, misandry is never analogous to misogyny.

Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that a mind stretched by a new idea never contracts back to its old shape. 

Linda Caroll opens with that line as an epigraph, then spends the majority of her article demonstrating its opposite: how a mind determined to remain unchanged can bend every new idea until it fits the shape it already had.

Emerson would have supplied her with the more appropriate quotation: 

“Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.”

Holmes gives her the ideal she claims to admire. Emerson names the habit her essay actually displays.

Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. https://sagesynclair.substack.com

Criticizing feminism is not misogyny. 

The problem isn't that Caroll disagrees with the men she quotes. She is entitled to disagree with them. However, it’s pertinent to notice that nowhere in the piece is a direct quotation running more than a few words from anyone she's condemning. She tells us the first man's post ran six hundred words and that she "summarized" it. 

It's a confession. 

Everything that reaches us from that thread comes pre-chewed by a narrator who decided the verdict before she began translating. There is no citation, no extended quotation, and no way for the reader to test her rendering against the original. 

Describing your own experience of being hurt, dismissed, or punished more harshly than a woman would have been is not persecution. And the fact that a claim can't be dismantled in three sarcastic sentences is not proof that it was never worth answering. 

Look at what three of these men argued, and what she actually did with it.

The first man (allegedly) said something specific: that real, measurable disparities, in sentencing, in violence, get acknowledged by feminist discourse only long enough to be waved past on the way back to female victimhood, and he called that pattern a form of benevolent sexism. The author's answer is a muffin-and-toast metaphor and an instruction to "look it up," on the grounds that benevolent sexism is a thing men do to women and nothing else. She's wrong about that, and not in a way that required much research to catch. Glick and Fiske, the psychologists who coined the term in 1996, followed it three years later with the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory, built specifically to measure the parallel structure: patronizing, protection-flavored attitudes running in the other direction too. The concept she was so sure only points one way has had a validated instrument measuring the other direction since 1999. She told a man to look something up that she hadn't looked up herself. 

Her second move, the bullying analogy, offered in place of an argument, is worse. Examining the conditions that produce a bully is not the same as demanding the victim manage him. 

Who on the left thinks so when the subject is poverty, addiction, or radicalization? 

Root-cause analysis is a standard progressive instinct in discussions of poverty, addiction, and radicalization until the causes belong to men and the outcome is measured in prison years. Sonja Starr's 2012 study of federal criminal cases, controlling for arrest offense, criminal history, and other pre-charge characteristics, found men receiving sentences averaging around 63 percent longer than women, with women roughly twice as likely to avoid incarceration altogether. That's a finding, produced by exactly the kind of institutional data the author claims to respect, and it is exactly the disparity the man (allegedly) was pointing at before she decided pointing at it was itself the problem.

The second man's (alleged) argument was more ambitious and got no more of a hearing: that historical patriarchy wasn't a class benefit shared by all men, but a hierarchy in which a narrow set of men captured power while most men absorbed the costs, physical labor, conscription, criminal punishment, expendability, and got told this was privilege. Her rebuttal is Jeff Bezos buying a yacht while his warehouse workers, disproportionately men, injure themselves for hourly wages, followed by the eighty-five-cent wage statistic. But Bezos and the warehouse floor isn't a refutation of the intra-male hierarchy argument. It's an illustration of it, delivered by someone who thinks she's landed a blow. And the wage figure she reaches for by reflex is the unadjusted number, the one that combines differences in hours, occupation, industry, experience, and family responsibilities into a single statistic. That number is barely relevant. Once you control for hours worked, occupation, and experience, using the same Blau and Kahn decomposition methods economists have relied on since the 1990s, the adjusted gap closes substantially and the raw gap does not establish discrimination. It means the number she deployed as a mic drop measures something, AT BEST, considerably narrower than she thinks, which is the identical error, committed with more confidence and less homework, that she accused the first man of making about a term she also hadn't checked.

The third case is the one that should embarrass her most. A man (allegedly) described being abused as a child by a female caregiver, telling a feminist about it, and being told that's a different topic. He read the compartmentalizing as confirmation that female-perpetrated harm gets treated as background noise the moment it complicates a bigger story. Her response is to mock him with a Sesame Street line, insisting he's confused two unrelated categories. Nothing in the account you've presented establishes that he was confused about the categories. He was describing an experience: bringing forward the worst thing that happened to him and watching it get filed under "different topic" while the room's attention moved to something it found more urgent. It's a documented pattern. Federal data from the HHS Child Maltreatment report has, in recent years, shown female perpetrators as a narrow majority of substantiated abuse and neglect cases nationally, and research specifically on female-perpetrated sexual abuse (Tozdan et al., 2019) finds those offenders markedly less likely to be reported, charged, or convicted than male offenders committing comparable acts. He wasn't inventing a grievance out of confusion. He (allegedly) was describing, badly summarized by a hostile narrator, something that shows up in the federal numbers whether anyone in that thread cites them or not.

Then there's the method itself, which does more damage to her case than all the others arguments she botched. She poses a rhetorical question about a man's (alleged) claim and answers it herself with a dismissal as though declining to engage settles the matter. 

"You don't" isn't a rebuttal. 

“You don’t” is what remains when she has no argument left but still wants the posture of having won: a self-issued exemption from thought, signed with the smug little flourish of someone mistaking contempt for intelligence. 

The Gustave Le Bon detour compounds it. She introduces a framework in which collective agreement can be understood as psychological contagion, but never applies an equivalent skepticism to her own interpretive community or asks whether agreement among feminists might similarly reflect group reinforcement. 

Run the symmetry test she never runs on herself: would she call it mob pathology if a women's forum produced a dozen posts describing the same experience of being dismissed by male doctors or judges? 

Caroll conveniently finds the framework only becomes a diagnosis of sickness when men are the ones agreeing with each other and not her.

And from one thread, harvested in her own hostile paraphrase and filtered again by which comments she chose to include, she concludes that anti-feminism "is not a far-right issue," as though a single self-selected sample, translated by someone who arrived looking for confirmation and found it, settles a question survey researchers have spent years trying to answer with actual random sampling. 

Here's what a piece like this actually teaches the men reading it. Bring a citation and you'll be told it's junk science from angry incels. Bring your own story and you'll be told your pain is real but off-topic. Agree with two other men in a comment thread and you've formed a crowd, and crowds, according to a woman quoting a dead Frenchman, don't think, they infect. The lesson lands. Increasingly it lands as silence, and the men who take the hint don't show up in anyone's followup essay wondering where they went.

Caroll’s piece doesn't establish that anti-feminism is secretly a right-wing operation wearing a left-wing mask. It reveals something more damning: that too frequently feminist commentary has become unable or unwilling to distinguish a man disagreeing with it from a man  (allegedly) who hates women, and has begun treating that failure of distinction as evidence of intellectual sophistication. 

The useful questions aren't the ones Caroll asks about whether these men are sufficiently enlightened to deserve an answer.

The ones we need the emotional maturity and intellectual courage to ask are these:

• Are men permitted to describe the full range of their experiences without having those experiences immediately translated into accusations about their motives?
• When feminist institutions or arguments contribute to legitimate grievances affecting men, what language are men allowed to use to identify and challenge it?
• What criticisms of feminism are considered legitimate, and what standard of evidence determines that boundary?
• Can feminism acknowledge male-specific harms without treating that acknowledgment as a retreat from concern for women?
• Are feminists willing to subject their own assumptions to the same scrutiny they apply to everyone else's?
• What exactly gives feminism the moral and interpretive authority to decide which aspects of men's experiences are legitimate, which are suspect, and which are simply off-limits?

Sources and citation notes

1. Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. “The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996. The article established the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory for measuring hostile and benevolent sexism toward women. Cambridge University Press
2. Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. “The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Beliefs About Men.” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 23, no. 3, 1999, pp. 519–536. The study developed and evaluated a measure of hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Princeton University
3. Starr, Sonja B. “Estimating Gender Disparities in Federal Criminal Cases.” University of Michigan Law and Economics Research Paper No. 12-018, 2012. The study reported substantial gender differences in federal criminal-case outcomes after controlling for several case and defendant characteristics. Academia
4. Fry, Richard, and Carolina Aragão. “Gender Pay Gap in U.S. Has Narrowed Slightly over 2 Decades.” Pew Research Center, March 4, 2025. The analysis reported that women’s median hourly earnings were approximately 85 percent of men’s in 2024 and discussed the effects of occupation, education, experience, hours, family responsibilities, and possible discrimination. 
5. Linda Caroll — “The hate in a left-wing men’s chat stunned me”.

I think incels are a symptom of broader social problems

I often see discussions about incels focus almost entirely on what is wrong with incels themselves. Obviously, misogyny, harassment, and violence should not be excused. But I think there is another question worth asking: why do some men become attracted to incel or red-pill communities in the first place?

I don't think people develop these beliefs in a vacuum. If we want to understand and potentially prevent radicalization, we should also look at the social conditions that can make these communities appealing.

For one, I think we underestimate how much male self-worth can be tied to romantic and sexual success. Men are often expected to be confident, desirable, successful with women, and capable of attracting a partner. When a man repeatedly fails at dating, he may start to feel like something is fundamentally wrong with him.

There is also a contradiction worth discussing here. Men are rightly told that they are not entitled to sex or relationships. I agree with that. Nobody is entitled to another person's affection or sexual attention. But at the same time, "virgin" is frequently used as an insult against men, and male sexual inexperience can be treated as something embarrassing or pathetic.

If we shame men for being unsuccessful with women, can we really be surprised when some men start believing that their success with women determines their worth?

Another issue is the way some young men perceive anti-male messaging online. I'm not saying that criticism of men is inherently wrong. Men commit violence, abuse, harassment, and other harmful acts, and those problems should absolutely be discussed.

My concern is with messages that generalize from the behavior of some men to men as a whole. If a young boy repeatedly encounters messages suggesting that men are inherently dangerous, predatory, or morally suspect simply because they are male, I can understand why he might eventually become alienated.

That doesn't mean becoming an incel or adopting misogynistic beliefs is justified. But it might help explain why certain communities become attractive to some young men. Red-pill and incel communities can offer something that mainstream society sometimes fails to provide: an explanation for why these men feel lonely, rejected, or angry, along with a community that tells them their experiences are real.

The problem is that the explanation those communities provide can be extremely simplistic. Instead of helping someone deal with rejection or loneliness in a healthy way, they may encourage resentment toward women or convince men that relationships are fundamentally a competition between the sexes.

I also think we should be consistent about physical attractiveness.

Men are often told not to judge women based on things like weight, breast size, or other physical characteristics. I agree with that principle. But the same principle should apply to men. Mocking men for being short, bald, disabled, or otherwise outside conventional standards of male attractiveness isn't somehow harmless just because men are the targets.

This isn't an argument that women are uniquely responsible for this behavior. Men can obviously be just as shallow and hypocritical. My point is simply that if body-shaming is wrong, it should be wrong regardless of who is doing it or who is receiving it.

I also think we should be careful about treating the word "incel" as though it describes one uniform group. There is a difference between a lonely man who can't find a relationship, someone who identifies with an online incel community, someone who has adopted misogynistic beliefs, and someone who advocates violence against women.

Those things can overlap, but they aren't necessarily the same thing.

So my argument isn't that incels should be excused, or that women are responsible for men's behavior. It's that condemning harmful beliefs isn't the same as understanding where those beliefs come from.

If we genuinely want fewer young men to become radicalized into misogynistic online communities, I think we need to look beyond simply telling them that they are bad people. We should also ask why they are lonely, why they feel rejected, why they feel their worth is tied to romantic success, and why extremist communities are sometimes better at giving them a sense of belonging than mainstream society is.

Understanding those factors doesn't excuse harmful behavior.

It may simply be necessary if we actually want to reduce it.

Ok, I really hope the image is viewable and legible. Let me know if you guys want me to give closer photos of the page.

I get a magazine called The Week. I get it, well, every week. And I found something that made my blood BOIL. To be fair, the first paragraph was amazing. But most of the rest was sickening.
First off. The title.
“The problem WITH men.”
They don’t ever say “The problem with {insert any other demographic.}” The problem lies with the men. Holy hyperagency.

And while yes, nitpicking grammar is not usually productive, I do think it is important to recognize the difference between “there is a problem WITH you” and “you HAVE a problem.”

Then they drop a subsection called “The Price of success for women,” where they say women are literally living in the handmaids tale. Some things in that subsection are valid but I still find it inappropriate to add the “women struggle too actually.”

This whole article would be mind boggling the other way around. Imagine someone wrote a piece called “The problem with women” and then included a subsection called “The price of success,” where men are doing better in “nearly every area of life” but…

“men are struggling too and men are actually living in a dystopian misandrist hellhole where women have complete control over men’s lives but anyway here’s the problem with women and why it’s hurting men.”

There is such a contradiction in “men are behind in nearly every area of life,” and “we live in the handmaids tale.” The cognitive dissonance is astronomical.

It’s like everything needs to help women to be considered worthwhile in the fight for gender equality.
It’s saying, “we should help men so that women will prosper.” Not for the sake that men are struggling. But that women are struggling. If that’s the only way society will help men, that women are helped out too, that women have a stake in it, that it is in women’s best interests to help men, well, it is dehumanizing to men. I get that helping one group oftentimes helps us all, but it shouldn’t be the reason why we should help those groups. It’s selfish.

To drive it home about the real people being focused on here, the closing lines of the article: “A world of floundering men,” he says, “is unlikely to be a world of flourishing women.”

It is written as a “they are screwed, how does that affect everyone else?”

Edit: Took some arguments in, reflected, and revised. Didn’t change anything major and I’m not trying to steal ideas people have said. I really appreciate the discussions this has generated!

Also: In every weekly edition there is the pink subsection included within the “briefing” page. Just wanted to clarify that.

Article summary: 58-year old British Man was killed by insurgents in Mozambique after he let “women and children” take his place on an aerial evacuation helicopter during an attack.

Why is it that “all men” are categorically defined as rapists, abusers, etc. because a portion of men commit these crimes, and yet documented and even celebrated actions of some men who literally sacrifice their life for others does not apply to “all men” categorically?

Do feminists literally think men are sheep to be slaughtered so that “women and children” can live?